| Subject: | Re: Busted Bicycle Riders |
| Date: | 08/31/2004 04:20 AM |
| From: | Dan H |
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00E8_01C48FA5.055BE1E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Ed, if those guys had a permit to assemble the cops would have been protecting them. ----- Original Message ----- From: Edward Lanton To: sn-@charter.net ; ob-@topica.com Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 9:22 PM Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Busted Bicycle Riders Rude Dog. It is your ignorance of your own constitution that's stunning. One of the principal purposes of the first amendment is precisely to protect the right to "PROTEST". You may recall that one of the major complaints of the colonists was the lack of ability to protest. (You have heard of the Boston Tea Party haven't you?) Even an arch conservative such as Sandra Day O'Connor would disagree with you, stating, as she does for the majority in Boos vs. Barry 485 U.S. 312 (1988) overturning a law banning protests within 500 feet of a foreign embassy: ". . . the First Amendment reflects a "profound national commitment" to the principle that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964), and have consistently commented on the central importance of protecting speech on public issues. See, e. g., Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145 (1983); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 913 (1982); Carey v. Brown, supra, at 467. This has led us to scrutinize carefully any restrictions on public issue picketing. See, e. g., United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171 (1983); Carey v. Brown, supra; Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92 (1972). ". . . such speech on public streets and sidewalks, [are] traditional public fora that "time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 515 (1939) (Roberts, J.). HN2In such places, which occupy a "special position in terms of First Amendment protection," United States v. Grace, 461 U. S., at 180, the government's ability to restrict expressive activity "is very limited." Id., at 177. Of course, there have been times when content neutral restrictions have been found to have been found to be justified, but your statement that the first amendment does not protect "PROTEST" is downright stupid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, in case anyone intends to respond with the BS line of "it's our right to protest;" please don't be so ignorant. Our First Amendment right is to peaceably assemble, not PROTEST, or infringe upon other people's rights. Rude Dog To respond to the whole group send to ob-@topica.com. To respond to the list manager send to cmur-@obra.org To unsubscribe send to obra-uns-@topica.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. ------=_NextPart_000_00E8_01C48FA5.055BE1E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ed, if those guys had a permit to assemble the cops would have been protecting them.</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=A-@yahoo.com href="mailto:Anqu-@yahoo.com">Edward Lanton</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title-@charter.net href="mailto:sn-@charter.net">sn-@charter.net</A> ; <A title-@topica.com href="mailto:ob-@topica.com">ob-@topica.com</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, August 31, 2004 9:22 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [OBRA Chat] Busted Bicycle Riders</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Rude Dog. It is your ignorance of your own constitution that's stunning. One of the principal purposes of the first amendment is precisely to protect the right to "PROTEST". You may recall that one of the major complaints of the colonists was the lack of ability to protest. (You have heard of the Boston Tea Party haven't you?)</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Even an arch conservative such as Sandra Day O'Connor would disagree with you, stating, as she does for the majority in Boos vs. Barry 485 U.S. 312 (1988) overturning a law banning protests within 500 feet of a foreign embassy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM>". . . the First Amendment reflects a "profound national commitment" to the principle that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=40&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b376%20U.S.%20254%2cat%20270%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=fb213e70391a3a958f2be871d7f745e8" target=_parent><EM>New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964),</EM></A><EM> and have consistently commented on the central importance of protecting speech on public issues. See, e. g., </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=41&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b461%20U.S.%20138%2cat%20145%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=9dddd341d8265d49b5efd2208d8d3c19" target=_parent><EM>Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145 (1983);</EM></A><EM> </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=42&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b458%20U.S.%20886%2cat%20913%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=cf45922cce3704f64cec36dac99fb143" target=_parent><EM>NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 913 (1982);</EM></A><EM> </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=43&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b447%20U.S.%20455%2cat%20467%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=27ac07244e5c480b9d9863d1f122a736" target=_parent><EM>Carey v. Brown, supra, at 467.</EM></A><EM> This has led us to scrutinize carefully any restrictions on public issue picketing. See, e. g., </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=44&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b461%20U.S.%20171%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=7e0319f2474493434fcac8a968870df6" target=_parent><EM>United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171 (1983);</EM></A><EM> </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=45&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b447%20U.S.%20455%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=771a564b123449eab8f37aec3a7f521c" target=_parent><EM>Carey v. Brown, supra;</EM></A><EM> </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=46&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b408%20U.S.%2092%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=f307c7f1448c6e525484a5111efb5e2c" target=_parent><EM>Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92 (1972).</EM></A><BR class=br><BR class=br><EM>". . . such speech on public streets and sidewalks, [are] traditional public fora that "time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=47&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b307%20U.S.%20496%2cat%20515%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=b5b89b54f86691668f3cc10addcf5d2d" target=_parent><EM>Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 515 (1939)</EM></A><EM> (Roberts, J.). </EM><A name=clsccl2></A><A style="TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=596a275f617648e2a4625047dae581ff&;docnum=6&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=14f42d84f25a4df9e5d433f7b8fdf8ec&focBudTerms=%28%28right%20or%20freedom%29%20w/5%29%20assembly%20AND%20protest&f#clscc2" target=_self><FONT face=verdana color=#336666><B><SUP><EM>HN2</EM></SUP></B></FONT></A><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=596a275f617648e2a4625047dae581ff&;docnum=6&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=14f42d84f25a4df9e5d433f7b8fdf8ec&focBudTerms=%28%28right%20or%20freedom%29%20w/5%29%20assembly%20AND%20protest&f#clscc2" target=_self><EM><IMG height=12 alt="Go to the description of this Headnote." src="http://www.lexis.com/ri/core_up.gif" width=11 border=0></EM></A><EM>In such places, which occupy a "special position in terms of First Amendment protection," </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=48&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b461%20U.S.%20171%2cat%20180%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=b38c4b53abe1e29926204d4ec9c38e24" target=_parent><EM>United States v. Grace, 461 U. S., at 180,</EM></A><EM> the government's ability to restrict expressive activity "is very limited." </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=49&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b461%20U.S.%20171%2cat%20177%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=733e782862be48e435d351406cbec7ae" target=_parent><EM>Id., at 177.</EM></A><EM> </EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Of course, there have been times when content neutral restrictions have been found to have been found to be justified, but your statement that the first amendment does not protect "PROTEST" is downright stupid. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>---------------------------------------------------------------------------</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>BTW, in case anyone intends to respond with the BS line of "it's our right to protest;" please don't be so ignorant. Our First Amendment right is to peaceably assemble, not PROTEST, or infringe upon other people's rights.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Rude Dog</FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><PRE>To respond to the whole group send to ob-@topica.com. To respond to the list manager send to cmur-@obra.org To unsubscribe send to obra-uns-@topica.com</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <P> <HR SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!?<BR>Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! <A href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=26640/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush">Enter now</A>.</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_00E8_01C48FA5.055BE1E0-- |
